Yevamot 105a (קה.) — the Talmud in English

And is it not taught in a beraita: If she performed ḥalitza but did not

spit, but did not recite the reading, her ḥalitza is valid.

If she spat but did not perform ḥalitza and did not recite the reading, her ḥalitza is invalid.

Nevertheless, she is disqualified from the brothers through the act of spitting.

If she recited the reading but did not spit and did not perform ḥalitza, there is no cause for concern

at all, and she is not disqualified even from yibbum.

And now, this beraita

is in accordance with whose opinion?

If you say it is in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

the Rabbi Eliezer of our Mishna, can it be said that according to his view,

if she performed ḥalitza but did not spit and did not

recite the reading, her ḥalitza is valid? But Rabbi Eliezer said,

that from the fact that it is written:

“So shall it be done,”

we learn that

an act that is performed is indispensable!

And spitting is indeed an act!

Rather, it is obvious

that it is in accordance with the opinion of

Rabbi Akiva,

who said in the Mishna that if she did not spit, her ḥalitza is valid.

And it teaches

in the beraita:

If she spat but did not perform ḥalitza and did not recite the reading, her ḥalitza is invalid!

And now,

with regard to whom

is she disqualified?

If you say

that the intention is that she is not permitted

to everyone, it is obvious! Is this ḥalitza, such that she has thereby become permitted to everyone?

There was no ḥalitza here at all!

Rather, is it not

certainly teaching us that she is disqualified

from the brothers. This proves

that according to Rabbi Akiva, spitting disqualifies her from the brothers, and she may no longer enter into yibbum.

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Rabbi Akiva, what is different about spitting,

which disqualifies her from the brothers,

and what is different about reciting,

which does not disqualify her from the brothers, as we learned in the beraita, “There is no cause for concern”? After all, neither of these two acts is indispensable for ḥalitza.

And we explain:

Reciting, which occurs both at the beginning

of the ḥalitza, when the yevama says to the elders, “What of my yavam?” and

at the end

of the ḥalitza, when she says, “So shall it be done, etc.”; therefore,

it is not confused for him,

and people will not err and say that this woman entered into yibbum after ḥalitza. They might think that the recitation they have now heard is the recitation that precedes ḥalitza, and that the act of ḥalitza has not yet been performed; therefore, she would still be permitted to enter into yibbum with the brothers.

By contrast,

spitting, which does not occur at the beginning, and

only

at the end,

after ḥalitza,

does occur; it is confused for him.

People may err and say that this yevama is entering into yibbum after ḥalitza, since she entered into yibbum after spitting, which is always performed after ḥalitza. If so, she must certainly already have performed ḥalitza, and they may err and say that it is always permitted to enter into yibbum after ḥalitza,

and they will come to permit a woman who performed ḥalitza to the brothers.

And some say that this is what they sent to him,

to Shmuel’s father:

A yevama who spat

in the court, not during the performance of ḥalitza,

should perform ḥalitza, and she need not spit another time

during the performance of ḥalitza.

This is like the incident involving a woman who came before Rabbi Ami, with Rabbi Abba bar Memel sitting before him. She spat

that woman before him

before she performed ḥalitza [

before the ḥalitza].

Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Abba

:

Perform ḥalitza for her, and release her from her obligation [

that is, exempt her and send her away from the court], and she need not spit again.

Rabbi Abba said to him: But we require her to spit [

surely she must spit]!

Rabbi Ami said to him:

She has already spat

previously.

Rabbi Abba said to him:

Let her spit

again;

what harm would that cause!?

Rabbi Ami said to him:

A mishap would result from it [

a detrimental consequence could result from this],

for if you say that she should spit again, people will say:

those who saw her spit again:

The first spitting

alone

has no significance,

and it did not disqualify her from the brothers, since the court required her to spit again after ḥalitza.

And they will come to permit a woman who performed ḥalitza

who spat in order to enter into yibbum

to the brothers .

Rabbi Abba said to him:

But we require

that the act of ḥalitza be

in its proper order!

That is, first the removal of the shoe, and only afterward the spitting!

Rabbi Ami said to him: The requirement that it be

in its proper order is not indispensable .

Even if one performed it out of order, the ḥalitza is valid .

He,

Rabbi Abba,

thought

that Rabbi Ami

was merely fending him off,

asking him to leave the matter aside and telling him that the order was not indispensable, although in truth the law was not so.

He went out, examined the matter, and found [

he went out, investigated, and found] that it is explicitly stated in a beraita.

As it is taught: Whether he performed ḥalitza before spitting, or he performed spitting before ḥalitza, what he did is valid.

This proves that the order is not indispensable.

Levi went out to the villages [

he went out to the rural settlements].

The local people asked him

:

A woman whose hands are amputated,

who cannot perform ḥalitza with her hands,

what is the law concerning her performing ḥalitza

with her teeth?

They also asked him:

What is the law concerning a yevama who spat blood?

Is it considered spitting or not?

They further asked him: It is written that the angel said to Daniel:

“But I shall tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth.”

That is, I shall tell you everything decreed in Heaven and recorded in writing, and it is true.

By inference [

it implies]

that there is writing that is not true?!

He did not have

answers to the questions they had asked him .

He came and asked

in the

house of study

those same questions.

Regarding the first question,

they said to him: Is it written, “And she shall remove it with her hand”?

It is not written that way. Therefore, it is certainly possible to perform ḥalitza with the mouth as well.

Regarding the second question, they answered him:

And is it written, “And she shall spit saliva,”

which would imply that she must spit specifically saliva alone, with no admixture whatsoever? After all, “and she shall spit” is written without qualification. This implies that even saliva containing another substance is valid. And when she spits blood, it is impossible that it not contain traces of saliva; therefore, her ḥalitza is valid.

Regarding the last question he had asked them:

“But I shall tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth”—does this mean that there is writing that is not true?

They answered him:

This is not difficult: Here,

the reference is to a decree accompanied by an oath, concerning which the Holy One, blessed be He, swore that He would fulfill it; such a decree cannot be annulled. This is what is written, “in the writing of truth”: the Holy One, blessed be He, makes it true and fulfills it, and does not annul it.

But

here,

where it appears that there is, as it were, writing that is not true, the reference is

to a decree not accompanied by an oath,

which can be annulled .

And

so

too

did

say

Rav Shmuel bar Ami.

For Rav Shmuel bar Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan: From where is it derived that a decree accompanied by an oath cannot be torn up?

As it is stated: “Therefore I swore to the house of Eli: The iniquity of the house of Eli shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or by offering forever.”

Rabba said:

Indeed,

by sacrifice or by offering it shall not be atoned for,

the iniquity of the house of Eli.

But it can be atoned for

by

words of Torah.

Abaye said: By sacrifice or by offering it shall not be atoned for, but it can be atoned for

by

acts of kindness .

Rabba and Abaye descended from the house of Eli [

they were from the house of Eli].

Rabba, who occupied himself with Torah, lived forty years.

Abaye, who occupied himself with Torah and

also

with acts of kindness, lived sixty years .

The Sages taught: There was one family in Jerusalem whose members would die at approximately eighteen years of age.

They came and informed Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai

of this.

He said to them: Perhaps you are from the family of Eli, concerning whom it is stated

:

“And all the increase of your household shall die as men” [

when they were still men ], and therefore the members of your family die in their youth! But there is advice for you:

Go and occupy yourselves with Torah, and you will live.

They went and occupied themselves with Torah, and they lived. And they would call them the family of Yohanan, after

Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai.

Rav Shmuel bar Unya said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that a decree upon the community is not sealed?

But the Gemara does not allow Rav Shmuel bar Unya to finish his statement, and raises an objection:

But is it true that a decree upon the community

is not sealed? But it is written: “For even if you wash with natron and use much soap, your iniquity is marked before Me!”

This verse was said concerning the entire Jewish people!

Rather,

Rav Shmuel said as follows:

From where is it derived that even if

the

decree

of the community has been sealed, it

can be torn up

afterward?

As it is stated: “Who is like the Lord our God whenever we call to Him.”

That is, whenever we call to Him, He will answer us, even if the decree has been sealed.

And we wonder:

But is it not written: “Seek the Lord when He is to be found,”

which implies that He is not to be found at all times?

And we answer:

This is not difficult. This

statement, which implies that He is not to be found at all times, refers to

an individual [

that is, to an individual]. Whereas

this

statement, which implies that He is to be found at all times, refers to

the community.

An individual—when?

When is the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, is to be found for an individual?

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha: These are the ten days between Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur .

They sent to Shmuel’s father: A yevama who spat blood should perform ḥalitza,

and she may no longer enter into yibbum, since she has already been disqualified from the brothers. The reason is

that it is impossible for blood to be without traces of saliva,

and necessarily she also spat saliva; therefore, it is valid spitting.

The beraita raises an objection: Could it be that blood issuing from the mouth

of a man with a flux,

and

blood issuing

from the organ

of a man with a flux,

is impure,

like his saliva, his flux, his seminal emission, and his urine, which are the discharges of a man with a flux and convey severe ritual impurity?

The verse states,

as it is written:

“His flux is impure.”

This implies that specifically his flux is impure,

but blood issuing from his mouth and from his organ is not impure; rather, it is pure!

But if you say that it is impossible for blood issuing from his mouth to be without traces of saliva, why is the blood issuing from the mouth of a man with a flux pure? Surely there is also saliva there, and his saliva is certainly impure!?

And we answer:

This is not difficult. Here,

the statement that, in the case of a yevama, it is impossible for there to be no traces of saliva refers to a case

where she sucks,

exerting herself to bring out saliva, in which case there are certainly traces of saliva.

But

here,

in the case of the man with a flux, the reference is

to

blood that

trickles

from his mouth, in which case it is possible that only blood emerged.

We learned in our Mishna:

A deaf-mute man who performed ḥalitza, etc.,

her ḥalitza is invalid.